Argentina to blockade Falkland waters in dispute over oil rights

reply to post by hans kammler

Ya I guess but I'm surprised that no one has removed her from office

Nuff Said......



www.youtube.com...

reply to post by hans kammler

don't forget gordon brown is in the same boat and if he sees a chance to smack Argentina about abit just to make the people vote for him he will....

Originally posted by disfugured
Good for Argentina for standing up against world powers like Britain!

Seems more and more countries are doing so and its nice to see.

Why though?

Argentina don't actually own the Falklands.........

Please do some research before parroting whatever nonsense you've heard some one else say and thinking it's your opinion.

Thankyouverymuch.

reply to post by tristar


thanks for putting that up. i didnt care much for her but she does have a way with words.

reply to post by hans kammler
So easy to put this right, just make a public statement that Trident subs will be patrolling the Beunos Aires coastal zone from now on. If the Argies don't like democracy and self determination then it's a fair response

Originally posted by hans kammler
reply to post by tristar

 

thanks for putting that up. i didnt care much for her but she does have a way with words.

Indeed, it simply brought chills to my spine listening to that voice after so many years.

Oil rigs are easy targets. If the brits even did get an oil rig set up it would always remain an easy target.

Originally posted by Unplugged
Oil rigs are easy targets. If the brits even did get an oil rig set up it would always remain an easy target.

That's true. But it would also spell BIG trouble for anyone who dared to attack or hijack them.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by Unplugged
Oil rigs are easy targets. If the brits even did get an oil rig set up it would always remain an easy target.

That's true. But it would also spell BIG trouble for anyone who dared to attack or hijack them.

hmm....why do these word "provoked" keep coming into my mind..perhaps i have read this before...

reply to post by tristar


Erm, European Union. Britain is a member. Falklands Island is a British colony. Colonies are regarded as "special status" under European Law and classified as a part of the European Union.

Not difficult to understand

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by Unplugged
Oil rigs are easy targets. If the brits even did get an oil rig set up it would always remain an easy target.

That's true. But it would also spell BIG trouble for anyone who dared to attack or hijack them.

hmm....why do these word "provoked" keep coming into my mind..perhaps i have read this before...

yeah probably in 1982.

reply to post by tristar


false flag attack on a rig, boom! i said it! just had to throw it out there

[edit on 17-2-2010 by hans kammler]

The Foreign Office elves have informed me President Kirchner is up for re-election next year and has one of the lowest ratings in post-democratic era. Her chances of being elected are slim.

Her rating is 20%

As the guy told me at the Foreign Office, Kirchner playing to the domestic audience.

This is your reason for the blockade. Every election year, the Falklands is mentioned.


[edit on 17-2-2010 by infinite]

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by tristar

 

Erm, European Union. Britain is a member. Falklands Island is a British colony. Colonies are regarded as "special status" under European Law and classified as a part of the European Union.

Not difficult to understand

I guess in theory it is, but in reality if this is the case, then Argentine is actually attacking the European Union, therefore its actually engaging in a hostile attack against N.A.T.O.

Is this not the case ?
Should we now begin to launch a full scale war against Agentine.
Should we contact the White House requesting full Nuclear Retaliatory Strike on Argentine. ?
Should we contact the 3rd Fleet and get our bombers on scram alert ? (scratch that)

edit: Okay, so we have re deployed the USS Nimitz that only just arrived yesterday at Hong Kong along with its support escorts, should this be enough to combat such a hostile force..?

USS Nimitz (CVN 68)
USS Chosin (CG 65)
USS Pinckney (DDG 91)
USS Sampson (DDG 102)
USS Rentz (FFG 46)



[edit on 17-2-2010 by tristar]

reply to post by tristar


Nobody has attacked anybody...

I'm sure us British would be the first to know.

Originally posted by mr-lizard
reply to post by tristar

 

Nobody has attacked anybody...

I'm sure us British would be the first to know.

What shall we doooooo...the choices we must make..lets see now..

A) Go to War

B) Don't go to War

C) Go to War and Make Billions

D) Don't go to War and Loose Billions

Damn thats a hard choice...ummm...can i take a phone call to help me choose ?

We may yet get to see if the Type 45 destroyer fares any better than the Type 42 when the Fighting Hawks and Super Etendards come to visit. Let's hope it actually has some missiles by then.

The Falklands conflict 2010 would be a very interesting prospect.

Originally posted by Retseh
We may yet get to see if the Type 45 destroyer fares any better than the Type 42 when the Fighting Hawks and Super Etendards come to visit. Let's hope it actually has some missiles by then.

The Falklands conflict 2010 would be a very interesting prospect.

Good Point, i somehow do not think they will place them in direct danger but more of a second buffer zone sever miles away out of reach. But if i am not mistaken did they not just complete battle maneuvers for testing purposes with live arms on board, or is this a supposed hush hush thing.

reply to post by Retseh


lol yes our super duper type 45 destroyers that can detect and track 400 golf balls simultaneuosly from 250 miles away, but we cant afford to fit them with missiles to do anything anout them.
and we dont like fitting phalanx because we have to pay for that.
we were supposed to have 12 t45s, then we said 8 please.and now 6?!
jeez thanks labour.